Sunday, March 31, 2013

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Not to inject politics into the discussion, but isn't winning the biggest determinant of a team's popularity? And politically, aren't the principles & the platform you run on basically like the roster you put on the field against your opponent? This article seems to think the GOP can trot the same (losing -- let's face it, 2 straight Presidential election L's) players and simply "rebrand the team" to become more popular. That's not how it works in sports at all... When you lose, you need to change the players to get better. And it seems the real conclusion, if this analogy is apt (and I'm not sure it is), is that the GOP needs to get new principles to compete again.

Republicans are doing worse electorally because America is becoming a little more brown, because old bigots are dying off, replaced by the youngest voters who tend to favor an expansive definition of gay rights, and because at the national level the GOP fielded on of the worst Presidents ever, followed by a weak candidate. They still won 47% of the vote and, thanks to gerrymandering, are ahead at the state level. All this handwringing is as though a .280 hitter went 3 for 20.

Given how bad their policies are for the vast majority of Americans it's extraordinary they do as well as they do. To be competitive again in Presidential races all they have to do is figure out how to be slightly less cretinous.

Met fans are seeing how ludicrous "rebranding" can be. Their propagandists keep saying "oh we had to get rid of all of our charismatic players because we're turning the team over to THE KIDS!!". Then we see LaTroy Hawkins, Scott Achison, Scott Rice, the sidearmer and Marlon Byrd. Rebranding=Condescending Dishonesty.

I don't mind a team using a few vets making close to the minimum to fill in if the purpose is not to rush minor leaguers. Somebody's got to play the field, after all.

Re the Mets, I'd never underestimate the Wilpons' stupidity, but it was weird to see Dickey traded when Santana and Bay coming off the books left enough money to pay his salary while keeping payroll below 90m. Strange also to see Reyes let go, then watch the team shell out close to his salary on relievers (who, of course, sucked).

i think the premise of the article is wrong. the republicans have an emotional, irrational advantage on a lot of issues. social issues, the groups they fail with they often agree on. prop 8 passed in CA b/c of black vote. obama switched them by coming out for gay marriage but that's a special case because he's the first black president.

for example, spending and the economy. people trust the republicans more on money. they take the republican's word on it for granted. there is a saying: if you're bad at math, you're a republican. if you're okay at math, you're a democrat. if you're actually good at math, you're a liberal economist. americans are bad at math.

therefore, if repub's would just get specific on what they want to cut, they'd win a lot. people would justify it in their own minds. people believe food stamps are bad. people often want to cut entire government departments, just different ones for each person. they are already biased toward the simple republican points on deficits, debt, and spending. democrats would attack the cuts but people wouldn't really buy the democrats' messaging. the other ingredient is the obvious tolerance of minorities and caving a bit on the social issues tide. but instead of them getting specific, they just say they'll cut taxes on the rich and corporations while cutting medicaid and we get garbage like the ryan plan that has 70-year projections of we're all gonna die without any data in the appendix beyond 10 years, and with the data that exists contradicting the projection.

but what's happened is, due to the huge money in politics and the apathy of the public, everybody's a puppet now. because the democratic party ideas have much more government and are more complex, the democrats have to be at least halfway competent. but with republicans, because of their simple platform, it literally boils down to who the biggest idiot is, who is easiest to control, in every race but the presidential (because the population actually cares about that election). as far as 2016 goes, if the repub's don't nominate christie or better they literally might not get the presidency or the senate for 50 years. it's just not about 2016 since christie would lose to clinton, who likely is only going to have token opposition (gavin newsom is the only person i think is running as of now - he has not announced but he looked very "i'm running-y" on colbert and the domain name has been bought).

therefore, if repub's would just get specific on what they want to cut, they'd win a lot. people would justify it in their own minds. people believe food stamps are bad.

The problem with this is, when people are polled on those specific cuts, they won't vote for the politicians proposing them. That's exactly why Paul Ryan tried to be so cute wrt the specifics of his budget proposal during the campaign. People like the idea of cuts. They won't support the cuts themselves.

Another problem with things like food stamps is that they're a smallish part of the budget. That's not to say we shouldn't cut here and there; it adds up. But to get it to the point where it adds up to a significant amount of money you have to start cutting things that hurt a lot of voters. Yet another problem is that taxes are already on the low side, historically, counting from WW2. The defense budget is obscene. Other than that, though, there's not a ton of waste in government, as a percent of the total, unless you'd like government to look entirely differently from how it has for the last 68 years.

there is a saying: if you're bad at math, you're a republican. if you're okay at math, you're a democrat. if you're actually good at math, you're a liberal economist. americans are bad at math.

Good one.

they are already biased toward the simple republican points on deficits, debt, and spending.

I don't think this is true, except in the most vague and superficial terms, and not when we're looking at anything like facts. The GOP is not against the deficit. The GOP is not against deficit spending. The GOP doesn't care about the debt, and strongly favors lots and lots of spending. Also, the fact is that the economy does better under Democratic Presidents. You're only correct wrt the dumbest voters, and when we're talking about the effectiveness of advertising (rather than policy) on those voters.

The Obama admin 1st term has proven to be a disaster for those seeking work. Add in the especially hard hit 20 somethings lack of job prospects, college debt and the fact Obamacare costs are disproportionately carried by the young worker, we are witnessing a lost generation in the making. Leadership has been absent for decades in Washington, yet most people are still impressed by one of the two major parties. This is our fatal problem, tolerating, even defending sucky leaders.

I read this a lot and always laugh. As if there are a bunch of good leaders just sitting out there waiting to be tapped on the shoulder. If you don't like the federal guys where do you go? State governments are horrible, cities are worse. The folks we have and have had are the best our society can do. Most of them are highly educated and are competent at most things (I'm talking at large, not about the one-off Bachman and Palin type idiots).

The fatal problem is our system of government will not work with just two dominant parties. It cannot work and it doesn't work. Whatever party doesn't have the presidency spends the majority of their time trying to sabotage anything that could help the country in hopes that things will be shitty enough by the next election that voters will turn to them. And if they do, the other party will turn around and use the same tactic. The unbelievably stupid rules of the House and Senate allow this tactic to be very effective.

Change all the principals tomorrow and it would make no difference. It's the system that doesn't work.

That poll suggests the Republicans are doing an excellent job of branding; a well informed electorate should be something like Dem=15%; I'd say Dem if you phrased it as "less shitty" rather than "better"=85%. I'm not sure they could rebrand as "not uncaring ########\" without losing the main area of trust - play Mr. Potter/the Duke brothers, and hope enough people fall for it that you can augment the religious right to 50+%.

1) Trade aging veterans for prospects or even lottery tickets
To the extent the organization has marketable veterans that can bring back value in trade, they should pull the trigger. Re-upping John McCain for another 6 years was probably a mistake, but he some value to teams that confuse him with Ned Stark, without realizing he's actually Stannis Baratheon. Don't make the same mistake with John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Jeb Bush, and the rest. K Street would be an ideal trading partner for Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor -- while the Lecture Circuit might be willing to take Jeb off their hands. The key is that none of these guys are going to be part of the next good GOP team - so get what you can, while you can.

2) Consider dealing marketable stars
Paul Ryan may be in his prime, but is he really going to get any better than he is now... and once we dig into the numbers, is he really even as good most people say he is? He's cast as a wonk, but there are better wonks - 2012 was his best year on record, but he was still ranked in the bottom half of the league, even with his Olympic Silver Medal in the 500 meter Jack LaLanne (or whatever). He's touted as a fresh face, but his CAR (Charisma Above Replacement) is middling at best. In short - his perceived value is probably never going to be higher and he might fetch as much as an energetic Lt Governor and couple young State Senators in return. Rand Paul is another excellent choice to move - he probably lacks the discipline to ever be a star, but there's no doubt he has a certain excitement that draws fans in certain quarters. If Team Libertarian would part with a boatload of naive college philosophy majors with a minor in economics, that's a chance the team would be wise to take. Marco Rubio might seem like the sort of piece to build around, but remember the TINSTABRP principle (There is No Such Thing as a Brown Republican Prospect) - he shouldn't be dealt just to deal him, but it would be foolish not to listen to offers.

3) Non-tender Michelle Bachmann, Louis Gohmert, Steve King, and a host of others
The CW is that these folks do the LOUD things that don't show up in the legislative boxscores, but the reality is that most of those LOUD things break the cardinal rule of winning politics: Votes are your most precious commodity and you should never just give up votes (by scaring the bejeesus out of them). The fans will certainly grumble - but ultimately, the fans will stick around because who else are they going to root for? Cut the cord.... yesterday.

4) Don't renew the exclusive media contract with Fox
Once upon a time, the media contract was a symbiotic advantage for both - but the increasingly splintered nature of media in the online age limits the party's options and while it certainly helps keep the team in tight with longtime fans... those longtime fans are getting older and older and the new generation sees the supserstation as a relic that hasn't quite managed enough cuddliness to be quaint. When the contract is up for renewal, the organization should think and long and hard about resigning - at any price.

5) Embrace objective analysis, data, and new methods of political valuation
There's an often mistaken premise that one must cast aside the old school 'FDR was a communist and the New Deal a crime!' player development to adopt the new model of accepting social safety nets as the reality of modern organizational theory. While it's true to some extent that these org members must take a diminished role, they can still have value in a new system. The key is to use them as checks and balances rather than giving them the final say in amateur draft and foreign FA selections. Their opinions still have value, but higher organizational priority must be given to the new reality where significant medical procedures cost more than most people's homes, some model of government sponsored pension (i.e., social security) is a necessity, and public educational spending is a requirement for class mobility.

I would feel better about the Republican despairfest if they weren't one well-organized GOP Presidential candidate and one complacent DEM Presidential candidate away from moving back into the White House in 2017. (I don't have anyone specific in mind for either role, but it's more than imaginable.)

Being seeded into the final round of a tournament 3&half; years in advance is a nice advantage for a team to have.

Hillary Clinton now leads Florida’s own Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio by double-digit margins in 2016 presidential match-ups as her popularity continues to climb in the state, according to PPP’s latest poll.

Clinton leads Bush by 13 points (53/40), Paul Ryan by 13 points (54/41) and Rubio by 16 points (56/40). This is a significant gain from January, when Clinton led Bush by 5 points and Rubio by 4 points. Clinton now claims 20-24% of the Republican vote and 55-58% of the independent vote against each of her potential Republican opponents. Her favorability has jumped to +19 (56/37) from an 11-point spread (52/41) two months ago....

Hillary Clinton is a good deal more popular than either Bush or Rubio in [Florida], and would lead both of them by double digits in hypothetical match ups. 56% of voters have a favorable opinion of her compared to 37% with a negative one. She leads Bush 53/40 and Rubio 56/40 head to head, and also has a 54/41 advantage over Paul Ryan. She leads the Republicans by margins of 17-24 points with independents.

At the same time, the country is continuing to move right on abortion.

Assuming that's true, I wonder if greater opposition to abortion is tied in part to greater access to contraception. (As in, some people who are uneasy with abortion but still may have been on the fence or even reluctant pro-choicers are more willing to see it restricted assuming the availability of other forms of birth control.) I have no idea, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me.

Assuming that's true, I wonder if greater opposition to abortion is tied in part to greater access to contraception. (As in, some people who are uneasy with abortion but still may have been on the fence or even reluctant pro-choicers are more willing to see it restricted assuming the availability of other forms of birth control.) I have no idea, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me.

Leaving aside the substance of the issue, Retro, I assume that's why the Democrats pushed the issue last year. If the conversation is about partial-birth abortion or elective abortion (e.g., don't want another boy/girl), pro-lifers win. If people are talking about contraception, pro-choicers do.

BTW, I hope the DNC remembered to slip George Stephanopoulos a healthy gratuity after that primary debate he "moderated." ;-)

It is certainly true that Americans are moving left on some issues—most notably same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization.

At the same time, the country is continuing to move right on abortion.

More accurately, many state legislatures are making it more difficult for abortion clinics to operate, and public opinion polls are against late term abortions and in favor of parental notification. (EDIT: and against elective abortion for sex-choice purposes) That much is indisputable. But any serious challenge to Roe v Wade itself is totally dependent on Anthony Kennedy alone, since consistent majorities of all polls show public backing for the fundamentals of that decision, and no Congress is ever going to take steps to overturn it.

Andy, that poll has everything to do with the Clinton brand as opposed to partisan politics. If Biden elects to run, you can bet the farm that her image will get sullied all over again.

If Hillary decides to run in 2016, the only way Biden would ever make anything more than a token effort against her would be if he's as dumb as some Republicans apparently think he is. But Biden's not dumb, he can read the polls, and he's older than she is. Absent obvious health issues, the 2016 nomination is hers for the taking.

Now if Hillary decides to sit it out for whatever reason, all bets are off. That and the economy are the two big unknowns that make any firm predictions of 2016 premature.

If Hillary decides to run in 2016, the only way Biden would ever make anything more than a token effort against her would be if he's as dumb as some Republicans apparently think he is. But Biden's not dumb, he can read the polls, and he's older than she is. Absent obvious health issues, the 2016 nomination is hers for the taking.

I think you are seriously underestimating Biden's abilities, Andy. How much are we going to wager that he runs?

IMHO, an Obama legacy pretty much necessiates that the Veep run for the top job. Moreover, Biden has been dreaming of becoming POTUS -- heck, he even ran in '08 when he was more of a long shot to win than this year's Astros -- since before he read a Neil Kinnock speech.

Assuming that's true, I wonder if greater opposition to abortion is tied in part to greater access to contraception. (As in, some people who are uneasy with abortion but still may have been on the fence or even reluctant pro-choicers are more willing to see it restricted assuming the availability of other forms of birth control.) I have no idea, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me.

I could see that as being a potential mindset, but historically, more access/use of contraception has led to more abortions, not fewer in that society.

In the U.S. the movement for legalizing abortion came only after widespread availability of the pill. You would think easy access to effective birth control would reduce the demand for abortion, but it doesn't.

In just the past ten years, I have been assured by experts that the Republicans have both risen to become "the permanent Republican majority" and also been reduced to "a southern regional party." We should expect this trend to continue.

I think you are seriously underestimating Biden's abilities, Andy. How much are we going to wager that he runs?

IMHO, an Obama legacy pretty much necessiates that the Veep run for the top job. Moreover, Biden has been dreaming of becoming POTUS -- heck, he even ran in '08 when he was more of a long shot to win than this year's Astros -- since before he read a Neil Kinnock speech.

I don't doubt that Biden would like to be president. I do doubt that he'd have a snowball's chance in Hell against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

Biden would be a solid backup choice for a lot of Democratic primary voters, but if you think that Obama's candidacy energized black voters in 2008 and 2012, just wait till you see how women react to the thought of the first woman in the White House. Then count the number of women as a percentage of the Democratic base. That simple demographic fact would crush all other considerations, and that snowball of Biden's would melt by the second or third primary.

Biden would be a solid backup choice for a lot of Democratic primary voters, but if you think that Obama's candidacy energized black voters in 2008 and 2012, just wait till you see how women react to the thought of the first woman in the White House. Then count the number of women as a percentage of the Democratic base. That simple demographic fact would crush all other considerations, and that snowball of Biden's would melt by the second or third primary.

If women were that energized by Hillary, she'd be President right now instead of Barry.

In just the past ten years, I have been assured by experts that the Republicans have both risen to become "the permanent Republican majority" and also been reduced to "a southern regional party." We should expect this trend to continue.

Biden would be a solid backup choice for a lot of Democratic primary voters, but if you think that Obama's candidacy energized black voters in 2008 and 2012, just wait till you see how women react to the thought of the first woman in the White House.

That was the feeling among many in 2008, Andy. There has to be more to her candidacy than that. Again, Hillary did not run a good campaign despite her popularity going in and I don't see any reason why she would do that much better the next time around.

Additionally, the OFA folks, along with all of their digital infrastructure, are more likely to gravitate toward Biden if he runs.

As for the GOP, they don't have to do anything to re-brand themselves. Anti-Obamacare will be enough once that disaster fully kicks off in 2014.

The GOP needs to stop shilling for Corporate interests uber-alles, and offer a compelling argument to the middle and upper-middle class about how they're going to reverse job losses and wage-stagnation. Let the Democrats be the party of the very rich and the poor. Occupy the middle.

That was the feeling among many in 2008, Andy. There has to be more to her candidacy than that. Again, Hillary did not run a good campaign despite her popularity going in and I don't see any reason why she would do that much better the next time around.

Hillary didn't run a good primary campaign in 2008 because she and her faithful ate their own dog food and believed they were inevitable from the start. They had no contingency to repel an equally historic campaign. If they run in 2016 they will be smarter (one assumes) and extremely unlikely to face another similarly historic candidate.

Additionally, the OFA folks, along with all of their digital infrastructure, are more likely to gravitate toward Biden if he runs.

That's an interesting point. Hillary lost youth votes in 2008 to Obama because a lot of people were uncomfortable with the "royal family" nature of the last few admins (Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush...<Clinton>) I think she doesn't have that problem if she goes in 2016 and the full party, including OFA and the O-bots line up for her as a continuation of the Democratic domestic project. She might lose some O-bots from the "conservatives for Obama" group that tends to be somewhat straight laced and male.

In 2008 HRC had Iraq votes against her and was going against the hot new thing(Dems love the HNT, always have). She ran a so so campaign (Thanks Mark penn) with several strategic and tactical errors, against one of the best candidates and campaign organizations in recent memory and made a huge run for it, extending the campaign many months and ending up still very popular (She did not lose, Obama won - unlike a certain recent GOP primary fight).

in 2016 Iraq is no factor for her chances, there is no HNT (If you think there is, who is it? If you answer Biden I will laugh), she almost certainly learned something from her failed run in 2008, and her credentials and popularity have gotton better (plus women had their desire increased by the near miss).

Health and desire allowing, no one is beating HRC for the Dem nomination. Without her the nomination become sinteresting, with her not so much. Without her I take the field over Biden (easily).

A lock for election? Much too early to tell. I think the generic Dem candidate should be favored over the generic GOP candidate just because of demographics, but beyond that who the heck can possibly say this far out? (And I really doubt ObamaCare will be a big issue in 2016 in the General, any more than Medicare, Social Security or other such programs are at any rate, though being newest it might get top billing).

EDIT: Ricky got there first, but I was wordier. That counts for somethign, right? Coke if you want it big guy.

The GOP needs to stop shilling for Corporate interests uber-alles, and offer a compelling argument to the middle and upper-middle class about how they're going to reverse job losses and wage-stagnation. Let the Democrats be the party of the very rich and the poor. Occupy the middle.

Agreed. The path out of the wilderness for the GOP is to ditch the firebrand soc-cons (that war is lost, baby) and embrace Red Tories.

Biden would be a solid backup choice for a lot of Democratic primary voters, but if you think that Obama's candidacy energized black voters in 2008 and 2012, just wait till you see how women react to the thought of the first woman in the White House.

That was the feeling among many in 2008, Andy. There has to be more to her candidacy than that. Again, Hillary did not run a good campaign despite her popularity going in and I don't see any reason why she would do that much better the next time around.

Well, for starters she nearly beat Obama in 2008 in spite of a horribly run campaign that got taken by surprise by an attractive insurgent candidate. You might remember, too, that Biden also ran in that same campaign, and didn't even make it out of Iowa.

And sorry, if you don't think that Hillary will be the default choice among women in that primary, I'm not sure what sort of weed you've been inhaling. Not to mention that Biden's major demographic base---union workers and other white blue collar men---are among the very groups where Hillary performed best in 2008.

Hillary was derided as a carpetbagger in New York in 2000, and won two Senate elections handily. She is easily the most popular politician in the country today. The fact that she narrowly lost a primary to a force of nature with a superior campaign apparatus in 2008 doesn't mean that next time around she'll be much better prepared for the unexpected.

Biden assures Obama's legacy, whereas Hillary assures Bill's. Therefore, expect a Biden run to be about "Obama's third term," much like what we saw in '88 with George H W Bush.

The problem is that assuring Obama's legacy is a point better made against Republicans who want to dismantle it than it will be against Obama's loyal Secretary of State, who also wants to uphold it.

Additionally, the OFA folks, along with all of their digital infrastructure, are more likely to gravitate toward Biden if he runs.

On what would you base that, assuming that Hillary declared her candidacy within the usual time frame? And anyway, there are hundreds of other such organizations, large and small, formal and informal, that would be in Hillary's corner to counteract OFA even if it did decide to go with Biden.

Agreed. The path out of the wilderness for the GOP is to ditch the firebrand soc-cons (that war is lost, baby) and embrace Red Tories.

Not quite. They need to focus on economic interests, but they can't ditch social conservatives. If the GOP came out as pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, 50% of their electorate would just stay home, and they would be a permanent minority. They need to keep the positions, just ditch the fringe candidates who can't speak on those issues without sounding like morons.

In any case, the social issues don't particularly hurt them where they need to go for votes: non-college educated whites, more assimilated middle-class Hispanics (especially the 50% that self-identify as "white"), suburban and exurban married couples with children making <$100,000.

Red Tories haven't done #### for conservatism in Europes, and won't here. You have to offer people a choice.

(And I really doubt ObamaCare will be a big issue in 2016 in the General, any more than Medicare, Social Security or other such programs are at any rate, though being newest it might get top billing).

By the end of 2014, there will be tens of millions of Americans with newly available (and subsidized) health insurance, thanks to Obamacare. Trying to run against that will be no more a winning issue than running against gay marriage or illegal immigration.

In any case, the social issues don't particularly hurt them where they need to go for votes: non-college educated whites, more assimilated middle-class Hispanics (especially the 50% that self-identify as "white"), suburban and exurban married couples with children making <$100,000.

They can maintain the status quo on abortion. They *must* move on marriage equality. They're not going to mine enough middle class Latino votes to stave off the 80+% approval of equality with young voters. And the suburbs/exurbs aren't going to join the rurals in denying basic equality to gays either. The issue is lost.

Not quite. They need to focus on economic interests, but they can't ditch social conservatives. If the GOP came out as pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, 50% of their electorate would just stay home, and they would be a permanent minority. They need to keep the positions, just ditch the fringe candidates who can't speak on those issues without sounding like morons.

The problem is that as the GOP stands today, even its non-morons wind up sounding like morons once they've been forced to swallow the moronic GOP primary Kool-Aid. Two words: "self-deportation"

In any case, the social issues don't particularly hurt [Republicans] where they need to go for votes: non-college educated whites, more assimilated middle-class Hispanics (especially the 50% that self-identify as "white"), suburban and exurban married couples with children making <$100,000.

Well, you can always try appealing to them with austerity programs. Worked for Romney-Ryan, didn't it?

They can maintain the status quo on abortion. They *must* move on marriage equality. They're not going to mine enough middle class Latino votes to stave off the 80+% approval of equality with young voters. And the suburbs/exurbs aren't going to join the rurals in denying basic equality to gays either. The issue is lost.

If they must electorally, then the move should be to eliminate government recognition of marriage completely. Make it strictly private.

I was actually offended by having to get a marriage licence. I view a civil marriage as completely pointless.

Gay friend asked me my thoughts on the two SC cases regarding gay rights. My answer they are nearly irrelevent. The battle has been won (or lost if you are on the anti side) no matter what happens. Right now the snake is dead, with its head cut off, but doesn't know it and is thrashing around.

I hope the SC makes good decisions and ends up on the right side of history, I hope it all goes well and very soon the whole issue is not even bothered with, but in the long run (and long is not that long as it turns out) the issue is decided and it is interesting watching people realize it and start to change their tune.

Honestly it would be better for the Dems if it is still an issue in 2016, but I doubt it will be (except maybe in the GOP primary).

Well, you can always try appealing to them with austerity programs. Worked for Romney-Ryan, didn't it?

Romney is exactly the kind of rich, corporate, corrupt plutocrat the party needs to jettison.

They need to be pro-market, pro-entrepreurship, but NOT pro-corporate, and not pro-rich. Over half the rich oppose them anyway. Why carry water for Goldman Sachs and GE when all they do is support your opponents?

51: Not sure that sentiment for it will be as high in '14 as it would be later on, were its status to be permanent and unchanging. There will be a lot of unhappy people once it goes online - independent of whether I think it's a good idea or well executed. There will be sticker shock.

You confuse your position with a position that would be able to win a majority of votes anywhere outside of your house.

QFT

And I find the notion of "the move should be to eliminate government recognition of marriage completely. Make it strictly private" to be the furthest thing from an offering that a party intending to present itself as conservative would want to do. Radical isn't conservative.

Well, you can always try appealing to them with austerity programs. Worked for Romney-Ryan, didn't it?

Romney is exactly the kind of rich, corporate, corrupt plutocrat the party needs to jettison.

They need to be pro-market, pro-entrepreurship, but NOT pro-corporate, and not pro-rich. Over half the rich oppose them anyway. Why carry water for Goldman Sachs and GE when all they do is support your opponents?

That's great, but which prospective (and electable) GOP candidate isn't a corporate shill? Somehow I can't imagine that a combination platform of anti-free trade, anti-Obamacare, anti-regulation, anti-Roe v Wade and anti-immigration is likely to propel the Republicans back into the White House. But maybe that's just me.

I'd totally be in favor of the government only giving out civil unions, to everybody. That'd be far more logical. But, at least given that it's handled at the state level, it'd be impossible to totally rewrite everything to bring that about. Letting gays into the "marriage" setup is much, much easier :-)

I think '16 is too early to expect an explicitly pro-gay-marriage GOP candidate, nor do I think it's necessary for there to be one for the Repubs to win. The GOP candidate can just say marriage has always been a state issue, I'm running for President, so let's talk about the economy/Iran/whatever they think their winning issues are.

(I do think a GOP candidate who isn't willing to say that, of which there will be some, won't make it out of the primary. Not necessarily because of that one issue, but because such a person probably won't be nominatable in general.)

not my party but i think the dems would be well advised to not trot old warhorses as candidates.

Because that is the GOP bit? :)

I like the hot new thing as much as the next Dem, but I don't think there is a candidate on the Dem side more likely to win in 2016 than HRC (and winning matters). Not to say HRC couldn't lose or some other Dem couldn't win. But hey feel free to chime in with specifics HW, everyone is invited.

This applies to Biden more than Hillary, though, due to the aforementioned historic quality of her candidacy.

If the Dems find a candidate who is not an "old warhorse" for 2016, throw 'em out there and see what they can do. At this point, there is no real "young blood" in line for 2016, primarily because the young guy that was supposed to take over in 2016 beat Hillary in 2008.

To the person who is running and their assorted hangers on, sure. But why to you? Why does a Democratic party victory mean a victory for you?

I think "politics as horse racing" has been absolutely disastrous for our country's policy decisions. If getting government out of the marriage business entirely is the right policy, then that should be the favored policy regardless of how popular it is. To say otherwise leads to nowhere good.

I was actually offended by having to get a marriage licence. I view a civil marriage as completely pointless.

Then why would you care if gays can get a civil marriage or not?

not my party but i think the dems would be well advised to not trot old warhorses as candidates.

I'm actually having a hard time thinking of who else would be a viable candidate... I know Andrew Cuomo wants to run, but that dude was BORN an old warhorse...

looking at current Senators all I can think is, "meh," "meh times 2" and meh cubed" the most "impressive" (talented politician, able to do things) just might be [up]Chuch Schumer- but he can be pretty unlikeable and I can't see as anything but roadkill in a general.

If anyone sees any Demo governor as being young and impressive, let me know, I'm at a loss.

I won't speak for Bitter Mouse, but speaking for myself, a Democratic party victory means a victory for me because there are real and impactful differences between the Dems and the Republicans. Being able to nominate Supreme Court justices (and for that matter, all the judges in the DOJ) is a power that has lasting impact on my life and that of my kids/grandkids.

If they must electorally, then the move should be to eliminate government recognition of marriage completely. Make it strictly private.

That's completely backwards. Marriage is a civil institution and only the civil benefits have any tangible value. If the Rotarians or the Loyal Order of Elks want to give special certificates to recognize "their" marriages it shouldn't have any more weight than an honorary doctorate from a university qualifies you to teach.

1: Preventing any more "Federalist" from getting named SCOTUS
2: rolling back the ones we do have

we are apparently just one vote short of a full judicial return to the Lochner era- and only because Roberts got cold feet at the last moment. What the federalists and fellow travelers want is a legal/economic regime that would be nothing short of catastrophic for the large majority of Americans-

for the majority the "gilded age" sucked massively, wanting to return to it is either insane or evil

I won't speak for Bitter Mouse, but speaking for myself, a Democratic party victory means a victory for me because there are real and impactful differences between the Dems and the Republicans. Being able to nominate Supreme Court justices (and for that matter, all the judges in the DOJ) is a power that has lasting impact on my life and that of my kids/grandkids.

Sure it does, but what makes you think the Democratic party winning means those effects are necessarily positive?

And I think the "real" differences are much smaller than you think. You've got an anti-war pothead as President who is going around carpet bombing countries with flying killer robots and prosecuting medical marijuana providers. You're completely subject to the whims of your fellow voters, and if those whims change, your "win" becomes a "loss" in a hurry without your guys ever leaving office.

If you subvert what you want the government to actually be doing to the simple goal of winning, the results will usually be quite bad.

To the person who is running and their assorted hangers on, sure. But why to you? Why does a Democratic party victory mean a victory for you?

I think "politics as horse racing" has been absolutely disastrous for our country's policy decisions. If getting government out of the marriage business entirely is the right policy, then that should be the favored policy regardless of how popular it is. To say otherwise leads to nowhere good.

Like Steve said (and most time he pretty much can speak for me - or at least darn close) the D party is much closer to my leanings than the R party (and by much closer, out of a 100 issues I prefer the Dem side on 80 - 95 of them, including almost all the important ones).

But more to the point, my comment was regarding HRC carrying the D to victory and not around gay marriage, so I am confused why you brought that up. besides on this I agree with snapper (a bit) and am not sure the government should be in the marrying business (of course that horse left the barn ... centuries ago? Not sure what the exact timeline in the US for such things). Since governments are involved, well I am on the side of gay marriage (for a pile of reasons) - one of my favorite buttons from the 90s (I think, might have been early 2000s) is my "straight, but not narrow" button.

Sure it does, but what makes you think the Democratic party winning means those effects are necessarily positive?

The fact that the votes made by SCOTUS justices nominated by Democratic Presidents over the past several decades have almost always been more sensible and preferable to me than those made by their counterparts nominated by Republicans.

Sure it does, but what makes you think the Democratic party winning means those effects are necessarily positive?

An amusing study I saw a while back looked at what officials did once they were elected and the number one determinant was what they said they were going to do. So vote based on what the candidates actually say, their platform, and hope. More to the point our election system is not ala cart. You have to vote for who is running.

That means in primaries I vote (and otherwise support) the candidates I like, completely (well mostly) ignoring electability. The in the general I repeat the process. In my lifetime (in my late 40s) or very active voting I have voted twice for a GOP candidate. Once the D was clearly corrupt and evil. The second time the D was kind of a well meaning nut and the GOP guy (Arne Carlson) was moderate enough that they have at this point basically kicked him out of the GOP.

I am just arrogant enough to assume that my preferences are better for the nation (state, county, city, ...), but I guess there is a certain unknowable aspect to it. Isn't going to stop me from voting though.

And I think the "real" differences are much smaller than you think.

Gak. Seriously there are many point of agreement across parties and many points of disagreement. Refusing to participate because one disagrees with something both main parties happen to agree on is the worst kind of "baby with the bathwater" thinking there is.

That's completely backwards. Marriage is a civil institution and only the civil benefits have any tangible value.

Lots of people don't believe that.

Lots of people don't believe in evolution either. Pandering to rubes is a waste of time. if you think your marriage is extra-special with superduper magic benefits because you were married by a Rastafarian priest under a haze of Senegalese trip-weed smoke, yippie for you, you nutbag. Just stop your stoned ass by the courthouse and file your paperwork.

Then how in the world is it just to have them solely bear the penalty?

I'm not suggesting they bear any penalty. I'm fine with allowing civil arrangement that give gay couples whatever civil benefits there are to marriage. I see no reason to limit it to gays either. Why shouldn't someone be able to put their sister or Mom on their insurance if they share a household?

If the gay-marriage proponents had decided to campaign for civil-partnership laws, we'd be done now. Gays would have whatever legal rights any married couple has.

Instead, they want to compel society to ratify their behavior, and they want to brand as bigots anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle.

I will bet anyone on this board any amount of money they care to name (or handle changes or whatever for the non-monetary betting crowd) that polygamy will stay in snappers imagination and be nowhere else in 10 years. No state will allow it even to the level of a civil union type or arrangment*, no federal benefits, no major** party will have it in is platform, no successful candidate for federal or upper state level office will support it.

It is not happening. And I am not even against it, it just plain is not going to happen. Period. Not in 10 years, not in 20 years, and almost certainly not in 50 years. First of all who is arguing for it? The gay marriage movement has had gay couples arguing for it, and a broad base of support in the gay community (duh) which is a fair percent of the population. There is no similarly scaled group for polygamy (yes I know there are groups out there, but no where near the numebrs of $).

* You know what I mean.
** major, as in at least regional in scope with actual office holders as part of your party.

Serious question: do you have gay relatives/friends? Have you talked with them about this issue?

I have no gay relatives or close friends that I'm aware of. But my divorced sister is aware I disapprove of her dating. She also knows that if she remarries without an annulment, I won't be there.

If I did, they would know how I feel on the issue, but I wouldn't treat them poorly. I don't treat anyone poorly.

I've worked with and gone to school with plenty people I've known to be gay; but I don't really discuss other peoples' sex life. It's no different than me believing marriage is indissoluable, or that fornication is wrong. If someone asks, I'll tell them, but I don't go around badgering people.

It is not happening. And I am not even against it, it just plain is not going to happen. Period. Not in 10 years, not in 20 years, and almost certainly not in 50 years. First of all who is arguing for it? The gay marriage movement has had gay couples arguing for it, and a broad base of support in the gay community (duh) which is a fair percent of the population. There is no similarly scaled group for polygamy (yes I know there are groups out there, but no where near the numebrs of $).

My wife already has people at work who are open about being in "polyamorous" relationships.

If gay marriage is declared a right by the Supreme Court, there will be no way to avoid a similar rluing on polygamy. All you'll need is one plaintiff and one smart lawyer.

Well, just a hypothesis on my part, but I'll guess that if you did have gay loved ones, and/or gay close friends with whom you'd talked about the marriage-rights issue, you'd be less inclined to believe things like, "they want to compel society to ratify their behavior, and they want to brand as bigots anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle."

Well, just a hypothesis on my part, but I'll guess that if you did have gay loved ones, and/or gay close friends with whom you'd talked about the marriage-rights issue, you'd be less inclined to believe things like, "they want to compel society to ratify their behavior, and they want to brand as bigots anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle."

I didn't say all gay people feel that way. I'm talking about the activists who drive the agenda.

I'm not suggesting they bear any penalty. I'm fine with allowing civil arrangement that give gay couples whatever civil benefits there are to marriage. I see no reason to limit it to gays either. Why shouldn't someone be able to put their sister or Mom on their insurance if they share a household?

This makes some sense actually.

Instead, they want to compel society to ratify their behavior, and they want to brand as bigots anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle.

yes and yes, though many may dispute your characterization of their sexual orientation as a lifestyle [choice].

I imagine gov't sanctioned polygmy is less than 10 years away

I can see a judge here and there, ruling that if gays can't be denied marriage then polygamists can't either... but I don't see any kind of groundswell developing to push the "issue" any further.

I have no gay relatives or close friends that I'm aware of.

Me neither (there are 2 I strongly suspect- and btw it's safe to come out now- maybe not 15 years ago, but now sure)

but I don't really discuss my views on other peoples' sex life.

me neither, it's just so... rude. (plus I'm sure 90% of people are having more fun than me)